Cal's 3 strikes law (crimes, income, income tax)

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by majoun

The violent crime rates in California and the state's budget problems suggest otherwise.

Well, you have to arrest them first. Once they hit the court the judges do their job.

I fail to see how the judicial system sets the state budget, granted many of the elected officials need to be behind bars.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by majoun

It really depends on the nature of the crime in question. The problem with three strikes (besides it bankrupting the state) is that it denies judges flexiblility in sentencing. Every case is different. IMO three strikes should be limited only to gang related crimes, sex crimes against prepubescent kids, and violent rapists.

I am completely in favor of 3 strikes: any crime that involve bodily damage or the possibility, like armed robbery is part of 3 strikes and should be..

Nita

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix

I'd like to see a good argument against locking up murderers, rapists and child molesters forever.
I have a simple value system: I dont harm other people and I expect other people to not harm me. Why is that so complicated for some people to understand?

I don't disagree with this sentiment. But just like the argument against capital punishment, there are many, many innocent people sitting in prison for some of the aforementioned crimes. Until there's a system put in place which better convicts actual criminals and lets innocent one's go or rather, not awarding prosecutors for getting justice by getting ANYONE they think they can pin something to, it's very hard for me to make blanket statements and acknowledge that I am willing to either put innocent people to death or allow them to rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

I don't disagree with your actual sentiment and frustration, but it's a bit more complicated than wanting to have guilty people pay the price.

[BennyPhoenix]

There's a huge difference between life in prison and the death penalty.
If someone is ever proven innocent they can be released.

[sugarlandd]

BennyPhoenix I agree with you whole-heartedly.

[BennyPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

but it's a bit more complicated than wanting to have guilty people pay the price.

It's actually more than that. It's also about making 100% that they dont do it again. When you harm someone else who wasn't attempting to harm you; you lose your right to freedom. When you murder someone(not kill) you lose your right to your life(either through life imprisonment or through execution).

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Puddy4LyF

I don't disagree with this sentiment. But just like the argument against capital punishment, there are many, many innocent people sitting in prison for some of the aforementioned crimes. Until there's a system put in place which better convicts actual criminals and lets innocent one's go or rather, not awarding prosecutors for getting justice by getting ANYONE they think they can pin something to, it's very hard for me to make blanket statements and acknowledge that I am willing to either put innocent people to death or allow them to rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

I don't disagree with your actual sentiment and frustration, but it's a bit more complicated than wanting to have guilty people pay the price.

With advanced DNA and other scientific developments you will see less and less of mistaken convictions plus I do not think there are many innocent people sitting in prison, I do believe there are some..

Nita

[ferretkona]

Originally Posted by nmnita

With advanced DNA and other scientific developments you will see less and less of mistaken convictions plus I do not think there are many innocent people sitting in prison, I do believe there are some..

Nita

If you ask most will tell you they are innocent.

[Puddy4LyF]

Originally Posted by nmnita

With advanced DNA and other scientific developments you will see less and less of mistaken convictions plus I do not think there are many innocent people sitting in prison, I do believe there are some..

Nita

I think you have a good point about DNA testing and I hope at one point we are further down the road, but I think you're entirely naive and/or apathetic as to just how many innocent people are convicted of crimes they didn't commit in this country. Let it not be forgotten that though we can use DNA evidence, but that in many cases, you don't have the option and can merely be convicted on circumstantial evidence. How would greater DNA testing help in cases such as these? Answer: they wouldn't. And the fact that both you and BennyPhoenix believe this worries me a little bit.

It's estimated that more than 15% of those convicted are/may be innocent. We are a justice-first, ask questions later type of society and we need instant results. Why do prosecutors make far more lavish wages than lowly defense attorneys? Along with the glory comes the obligation to get someone for the crime. Do you think they care who it is? Some, I'm sure.

It's like I said previously -- I don't disagree with either of your sentiments. In my hometown of Cleveland, there was recently a murder in which a man, with a prior conviction -- an obvious virus to society -- murders his new wife, her sister, and 3 of her children in cold blood before murdering himself. Do I think this is unacceptable? Of course. Last week in Oakland, a man with prior convictions, gunned down and killed what will be four police officers. Do I think this is unacceptable? Of course.

But you cannot simply be fine with putting 15% of people who didn't commit the crime in jail for the rest of their lives. I mean, I'm not saying you can't -- we already do in some cases -- but can we really be so flip and make such blanket statements? Does it make you feel better to say that they'll be cleared of wrong doing if they didn't actually commit the crime? What are you, 7?

I can't take things like this seriously until you understand the realities of the situations you're discussing and you simply haven't done so yet.

[BennyPhoenix]

One thing most people dont realize about many(not all) people who are in prison and did not commit the crime; they have often been convicted of crimes previously. They are rarely innocent of some pretty nasty crimes.
And this, IMO, is the biggie: If you release a violent felon or murderer after a certain period of time and he commits another murder, that victim is innocent but was just executed. For every innocent person in prison there are hundreds of victims of criminals that were released on parole. Our system is not perfect, but fewer innocent people are victimized if certain crimes were made life without parole.